Monday, December 28, 2009 0:12
Press Muse: Speaking “truth” for power
In Main Stories, Press Muse • 2,271 views • 36 Comments
Invitation:
The Online Citizen & Talk Politics’ Year In Review special forum will take place on Thursday evening, 29 December 2009, at the Post Museum. The forum will start at 7pm and end at about 10.30pm. Please do come and join us. A Man in White will be ferrying participants from Farrer Park MRT to the Post Museum. First ride starts at 6pm, then 6.30pm and 7pm.You can view the programme for the evening here. See you there!
Spiegel
Foreign talent, national identity, immigration, integration. The deluge of reportage on these issues du jour is incessant, from fears of the dilution of identity to possible citizenship tests, from ministers’ speeches to stories about foreign-born men doing national service. People care about these stuff and want to read about them.
So when the Ministry of Education announced on Monday (21 December) changes to primary 1 school registration balloting and increases in school fees for PRs and foreigners, the follow-up reports were inevitable.
On Wednesday (23 December), the Straits Times reported on page B5 of its Home section, “School fee hike reasonable to most“, with a subheading, “Higher non-citizen fees seen by many foreigners as fair and still affordable“.
When reading such a claim, you might reasonably expect some kind of number or percentage to accompany this somewhere in the story. But there are none. In support of the thesis, reporters Leow Si Wan and Yen Feng provide just three quotes – one from the chief executive of a private school, one from the president of a networking club for Chinese immigrants and one from a Malaysian parent.
They report:
Dr Chin Kon Yuen, chief executive of private school TMC Educational Group, said: ‘Overall, the increased fees are still low compared to what foreigners pay to enter state schools overseas. I don’t think it will have much impact.’
Asking someone who makes his profits off school fees whether the fee hike is reasonable is hardly the most compelling piece of journalism. Yet the reporters (or the sub-editor) placed it as the first quote in the story – that is to say, they probably thought it to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of their thesis. Which is weird, because I thought the very next quote was better in that respect, even if it did not make for very compelling prose.
Mr Tony Du, president of the Tianfu Club, a networking club for Chinese immigrants, said he spoke for the group when he described the decision as ‘fair’.
‘Of course, the Government will take care of its citizens first.’
But of course, this quote is still not exactly the money shot. Just how representative is this guy? How many parents with school-going children are there in Tianfu Club? Are they mainly affluent types or come from all sorts of social and financial backgrounds?
The reporters then use a quote from one Malaysian parent, who doesn’t seem all that bothered by the fee hike:
Malaysian parent Charlene Lee, 41, a housewife, placed her two sons in schools here. She said: “Nobody wants school fees to go up, but we are very happy with the education and opportunities my boys have received. The fee increase is still affordable for us.”
Again, we don’t know all that much about Mdm Lee. Maybe her husband earns a very respectable salary, high enough to make the fee hike a mere trifle. How representative is she of other foreign parents? We are not sure.
According to the story, besides China, the bigger sources of foreign school-going children are Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, while a smaller proportion come from North America, Australiasia and Europe. So in fact the reporters had quoted one person who can scarcely represent all Chinese parents as it is (Tianfu Club is an association of Sichuanese immigrants) and one Malaysian mother to represent parents from all these regions, and expect their argument to hold up.
Later in the story, they fill us in on the views of three Chinese “study mamas”, but their opinions do not exactly come across as being supportive of the story’s main argument. All three mothers, in fact, worry either about the increased fees or having to work longer hours to afford them. The burden of supporting the thesis that “most” foreign parents find the hikes reasonable still reside with the first two unsatisfactory quotes.
To be sure, using simple anecdotal evidence like this is neither wrong nor unacceptable. Most of the time, it is impractical (although ideally desirable) to conduct a statistically significant survey for the purpose of writing a story. As such, journalists will rely on quoting a handful of members of the public or interested persons to illustrate certain points of view to provide depth to their stories. And for the most part it is fine, as long as you write with the requisite reticence to acknowledge that your findings are nowhere near conclusive.
But for this particular piece, I have my doubts. It is making quite a specific and loaded claim that appears a little counterintuitive, on an issue in which the government has a clear stake. And considering the number of people whose opinion they are trying to represent – parents of about 60,000 non-citizen school-going children, according to their story – I suspect the reporters may have overplayed their hand.
Armed with such anecdotal evidence, it is still possible to write a factually sound story. The headline might be something like, ”School fee hike reasonable to some” – a display of reticence that is consummate to the quality of evidence available. But that wouldn’t make it much of a news story, would it?
For some contrast, I present Channel News Asia’s story on the same issue. Its headline on TodayOnline says it all – “Foreigners split over move to raise school fees” (interestingly, CNA’s own headline is “School fee hike may prompt more foreigners to take up citizenship“).
I quote the two relevant paragraphs here:
While some foreigners felt that the hike was reasonable given the schools’ increasing expenditure, including teachers’ salaries, others felt the steep increase was “unfair”.
Said a foreigner: “Of course, it’s good news for Singaporeans but they should put a cap to the fee increment. Times are bad and everyone is under a lot of pressure.
Concededly, the CNA story is not that great either. While it cited several “foreigners”, no indication is given as to how many the reporters Maggie Chong and Dylan Loh spoke to – the reader has nothing to go by in order to judge the validity of CNA’s claims. Furthermore, the foreigners are all quoted anonymously. Considering that the Straits Times managed to get three “study mamas” to go on the record, this lack of attributed material leaves something to be desired.
But sloppy reporting aside, there is something to be said for CNA in this case. It sat on the fence, because it knew it didn’t have enough to go by in making a case in either direction. The Straits Times, however, picked a side even when it was not able to produce the evidence to back its story up.
Moving swiftly on, I bring your attention to the Straits Times‘ political reporting. It seems that Zakir Hussain continues to flatter to deceive in his role as political correspondent. In the 19 December issue, the Oxford-educated and Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism-trained reporter ditched his years of training and became no more than a parrot.
In summary, Law minister K Shanmugam had penned an editorial in Petir, the People Action Party’s bi-monthly magazine, and Hussain promptly regurgitated it. There was so little journalistic input from Hussain in that piece that you actually had to go looking for it. I’ll save you the trouble and show you where it is – the twelfth paragraph, where he wrote:
It is a position he has argued vigorously in favour of in the past three months: first to a group of international lawyers meeting here in October, then the Harvard alumni in Singapore last week, and now, PAP members.
There it is. Just the one out of the 18 paragraphs in the story. The only one in which its content cannot be derived directly from Shanmugam’s Petir editorial.
Every political party puts out its own publications laced with grandstanding statements and editorials. How this one in particular is more newsworthy than the rest, only Hussain knows. He would have been onto something if he could get people from other parties, or even the PAP itself, to challenge these statements. He might have more to go on if he could get political scientists and observers to critique Shanmugam’s claims. There would be more legs on the story if he got input from members of the public – the students and the youth in question. Perhaps the story would work better as commentary than straight news (because it isn’t, really).
In fact, why did he even bother to write it up as a story? They could have saved Hussain’s efforts and just printed Shanmugam’s Petir piece verbatim in the Review and Forum page, like they did with an excerpt of Shanmugam’s speech on the government’s foreign talent policy to the Harvard Club of Singapore.
Maybe they wished to pass this off as a piece of journalism – a product that has ostensibly been filtered through a journalistic process – and therefore attach that bit more credibility to what otherwise would have been dismissed outright as party propaganda.
P.S.: FAO Mr Alan John, deputy editor of The Straits Times. The aforementioned is why people think your newspaper is a government mouthpiece, and quite justifiably so.
—–
Related posts:
36 Comments
Gary
CJ
This is just so TYPICAL of ST…
stuffing words into our mouths…
..point here is; are people in general given a CHOICE over many issues concerning Costs of Living???
…so is this REASONABLE???
andrew leung
December 21, 2009
School fees to rise for foreigners from 2011
From 2010, MOE doubling S’poreans’ balloting slips for primary schools to two
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/news/story/0,4574,364769,00.html?
The jump in fees is to ensure that foreigners bear a ‘fair share’ of rising education costs, Minister for Education Ng Eng Hen said yesterday.
‘As the cost of education goes up, we think that PRs and international students should bear some of that,’ he told reporters.
‘Even after the increase, the absolute amount will still be very competitive compared to the private schools,’ he said, noting that the fees remain a fraction of those charged in other parts of the world.
The move also aims at reflecting the higher subsidies that Singaporeans enjoy, rather than at attracting PRs who earn more, he added.
The new measures could also be an incentive for PRs to become citizens, he said, emphasising that Singapore continues to welcome foreigners.
–
younger01
n to tink thousands of sinkies are being brainwash DAILY. these ST lapdogs are TRAITORS i tell uu ..
Tzen
These underhanded tactics by the ST amount to deception, no?
ST the national liar?
Amazing
The editors of S.T. should write to Pravda on how to do a more convincing job.
Reader
Hahaha. This kind of reporting is quite typical wor! :)
TantheSingaporean
ST headlines?
“Singaporeans welcome GST increase to help the poor”
“Singaporeans understand hugh pay increases for Ministers
to attract talents”
” Netizens accept measures to rein in and control bloggers”
” Voters think CSJ is pyschotic and only PAP can lead them to Gloryland”
” Workers cheer increased foreign labour participation in the labour force”
” If not being weighed down by external factors, Singapore’s growth
rate could hit double digits”
” Most think if not for LKY, we certainly would still be a fishing village”
” Many accept our losses in TH and GIC are part and parcel of the
Investment market”
” ST readers think SM is honest to accept his mistakes in Biligual policy,
but the Stop-at-2 and arrests of political opponents are due to the social
and political situations at the time”
John
The government should cut defence spending and use the excess funds to subsidize the cost of school fees for Singapore citizens, especially in polytechnics and universities! The reason is that Singapore males had been subjected to 2 years of NS and forgo the opportunity to earn money to support their family and their own education during their 2 years of NS. Hence, the government must compensate the NSFs and NSmen for these opportunity cost! If the SAF can afford to send their regulars for education and pay them money every month during their studies in universities, why can’t the defence budget be cut and the fund use to subsidize the cost of education for NSFs who completed their NS liability and went to pursue their studies in tertiary institution?
Ng Gae Ree
The people given the mandate can implement policies they deem fit.
If the people not agreeable, there is the Hong Lim park provided for use to voice their disapproval.
Now, ask ourselves, have any citizen voiced up their disapproval there?
None.
You see, its really the People who are responsible in their own ways – it takes 2 hands to clap. Dun always kpkb.
Kamansucta
The people must not always point the fingers and blame people other than themselves. They must not always feel they are not responsible. That would be so Irresponsible. They are part of the equation. If you feel helpless and unable to do anything about it, just admit it.
ronin
ST only has reporters (i.e. merely reports what PAP says)……..not journalists. Because any journalist worth his/her salt wouldn’t want to work for ST.
lee
Ronin,
ST has no reporters nor journalists. I believe the correct
term for them is propagandalist.
Shihan
“There was so little journalistic input from Hussain in that piece that you actually had to go looking for it.”
McLuhan would agree that the nature of SPH itself renders journalists unlikely to create input into the original message disseminated by Shanmugam. It seems as though ‘good reporting’ in Singapore is equivalent of obtaining a transcript of the message – anything else would be a subversive twisting of the message by our ever-wise political leaders.
FeverGuy
Whether you are an oxford trained or colombia trained journalist, there isn’t any hope for a journalist once they decided to join shitty times or mediacorpse. They are lost and blinded by the fat pay check given to them every month just writing crap after crap of bu!!sh!t and living a pitiful and souless life as a “jornalist” really nothing more than a mouth piece for the ruling party. Whatever they wrote are forever archive and for the future liberated Singaporeans to laugh at them.
Goh Leng Cheng
I just realised an amazing thing about the MSM.
the romanian diplomat’s A6 car braindead a 30 year old man who was subsequently taken off the oxygen machine and pronounced dead was not named nor his position mentioned in chinese MSM newspaper according to what a reader told me.
why?
MSM?
146?
why? report all truths. that is being responsible. the reporters know. but why not reported? the people need to know. but those who only read MSM may not know unless they are net savvy And not apathetic enough to read alternative news websites like TR .
is there god?
XP
i do not understand… why is there a lack of clear concise diagrams; a chart or graph of some sort to help me actually UNDERSTAND how peeps feel ’bout the whole increase-school-fares-thingy?
i mean, you don’t make claims based on what several peeps say, d’you?
Goh Leng Cheng stands corrected
“16) Goh Leng Cheng on December 28th, 2009 10.28 pm ”
I stand corrected.
‘the reader’ was my family member who is a bit , i suspect, senile. I read the chinese MSM newspaper Myself this morning and realise that the diplomat’s name and position was mentioned. So, i appologise for the misunderstood information i posted earlier. The MSM did report all the info. only pictures of him and his friends were not published.
Boo
ST is just a public relations division of MIW.
So no surprises here.
saiber
I would really like to see some reports the Press Muse wrote when he was with ST, or for that matter any other media outlet or blog. Obviously, he thinks he is god’s gift to journalism.
Spiegel
I don’t think I’m god’s gift to journalism – if I may be pedantic I couldn’t possibly do so since I’m an atheist. I doubt that Ben Goldacre, a medical doctor who writes a column in the Guardian critiquing and decrying bad science, thinks he is god’s gift to science or medicine. Maybe other columnists do. But that isn’t the point really.
The point of this column is an attempt at plurality.
Thanks to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, there is no genuine plurality in the Singaporean press. There may be 16 newspapers in circulation, but when that is broken down, the plurality is almost non-existent – few of the papers are in direct competition with one another).
Just looking at English-language newspapers, there is one English-language daily broadsheet (Straits Times), one English-language weekly broadsheet (Sunday Times), one English-language business/financial paper (Business Times), one English-language daily tabloid (The New Paper), one English-language weekly tabloid (TNP Sunday), and three freesheets (Today, Weekend Today and My Paper). The only genuine competition going on is between Today and My Paper. The other papers have their own target readership, and no one else in the print market to challenge them.
Further to this, there is no concerted civil society effort directed specifically at discussing and addressing media issues. We haven’t the likes of, just to name a few:
Regret the Error – a list of apologies and corrections made by newspapers in the US and UK – http://www.regrettheerror.com
MediaGuardian – a section of the Guardian devoted to reporting and commentary of media news and issues – http://www.guardian.co.uk/media
Media Standards Trust – an independent charity aiming to foster media transparency and accountability – http://www.mediastandardstrust.org
The Daily Show – satirical show that often critiques the US news media – http://www.thedailyshow.com
Journalisted – a database of UK journalists and catalogue of their published work, which helps improve transparency – http://www.journalisted.com
The Singaporean press is not openly self-reflective, given the absence of any discourse and debate over the media (although all newspapers certainly review and critique themselves). But the media and its activities fall firmly within the public sphere and therefore constitutes a public issue.
I don’t pretend or profess to be Harold Evans, Bob Woodward or David Halberstam. But the press is public, and anyone and in fact everyone is entitled to criticise or engage in discussion about them. This discourse is not really happening here, and the least I can hope to do, is to give the process a pin-prick. Maybe others will catch on.
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 31 Dec 2009
[...] in a Strange Land – Adam Khoo: The Expats Will Rule Singapore [via TOC] – TOC: Press Muse: Speaking “truth” for power – The Secret Political Blog: PRs to party together, Singapore to promote [...]
Francis
I would like to advise that this matter is better laid to rest than discussing about it. Decision has been made and is Final. We all have our opinions. I find that arguments are getting into racial lines which would still not change the resultsbut would influence and instill other minds. Damage can and would be done if this continues to flare up.
I would suggest that because of the nature of our society, and the way voting is conducted (“because it is profit driven”) is not conducive for us to continue with such a contest. If conincidently next year a person from the same race is selected as a Winner, than it would more strongly strengthen the feelings of the critics. We talk about being unique, why then are we copying contests that are created in other countries?
What is a Singapore Idol? What does it really means and take to be a Singapore Idol? Look into the depth for the meaning of the word Idol? Does it really mean that you are an excellent singer and it makes you to be a Singapore Idol?
I think we should scrape this whole contest before it creates more controversy and creates a visible crack in our society than good.
Perhaps a contest to discover new talents or something with a mult-racial flavor like multi racial dress/song/look/dance etc, could be created in Singpaore which we can be called uniquely Singapore.
Jeff
@Francis #23 – that may very well be true, but if so, then we have a larger problem that needs resolving.
If official media in Singapore is becoming a mere echo chamber, a Tass-style official alternative to reality to which nobody with any sense gives real credibility, then what effect on the city? The Minister or his close cronies authorize a particular item of propaganda floating a “wondrous” new policy, hear no push-back at all from the public (which is either too cowed to complain or studiously ignoring the official “information” channel)… and disaster ensues. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before… but one of the main virtues of a free and open media community is that it can protect the government from itself. Look at China – hardly a democratic state, but orders of magnitude more responsive to public opinion than our local pooh-bahs. Can we afford to let this go on while another million Singaporeans emigrate to freer, better climes?
saiber
Thus far, you position yourself as someone who has a better news sense than the msm and are more adept at doing the job of reporting. Granted you have little or no actual experience working as a reporter, I don’t see how you can assume you no better without the presence of at least a mild god complex.
That you choose to do it under the veil of anonymity is another curious thing.
saiber
Thus far, you position yourself as someone who has a better news sense than the msm and are more adept at doing the job of reporting. Granted you have little or no actual experience working as a reporter, I don’t see how you can assume you know better without the presence of at least a mild god complex.
That you choose to do it under the veil of anonymity is another curious thing.
Spiegel
@saiber,
“Thus far, you position yourself as someone who has a better news sense than the msm and are more adept at doing the job of reporting. Granted you have little or no actual experience working as a reporter, I don’t see how you can assume you know better without the presence of at least a mild god complex.”
I am not sure how you came to assume that I have no journalistic experience. It would suffice for me to say that I do have journalistic experience as writer and editor. Regardless, I see this as irrelevant.
My critique will stand or fall on its merits and failings. I think I have explained in reasonably clear terms what the problems in the news stories I picked out were and why I think they are problematic. If my arguments are sound, they will withstand scrutiny and advance debate on the media. If they are not, all readers (including yourself) are welcome and in fact encouraged to tear it apart.
In the vein of your argument, you may ask what have journalists to offer in discussing politics, education, economics, sport, etc when so many of them are not experienced professionals in those fields. Yet nonetheless, many journalists themselves discuss such issues, which they have no direct involvement in, and do so intelligently, providing useful insight and fostering debate (although there are also those who do not). If they make sound arguments, no one minds or even notices that they are not trained experts in the fields they write about. But if they are mere pretenders, others would come in to correct them.
It shouldn’t matter if I am utterly uninitiated or an old-hand in the business. I am not discussing issues that are privy to a select few and can only be tackled by very learned or skilled exponents. The stuff I have discussed concern a public product which has public consequences. So even if I am not a journalist, I would as a member of public have a direct stake in the output of journalists, for it concerns and affects me and the society I live in. I would have a stake, as a reader of their work, in the quality of their journalism. I would have as much as right as any other to criticise their work when I see failings in them.
I don’t see myself as necessarily being better than those whose work I criticise. I would definitely say however that I know that they can do better than this, and for the sake of their readers they should.
“That you choose to do it under the veil of anonymity is another curious thing.”
Curious it is, and I understand my use of a handle will come across as duplicitous too. Nonetheless, it shouldn’t have any bearing on the merit and failings of my column.
Rather, I follow on from the spirit of online forums and article comments on the likes of the Guardian website – anonymity, use of handles, avatars and pseudonyms, doesn’t stop people from having fruitful debate and commentary on the articles and topics in question.
In fact, I would even argue that this to some extent forces users to focus on the issues, rather than be distracted by fancy credentials. I think people sometimes defer too much to credentials and become passive when reading commentary.
If I may raise the example of Zakir Hussain again; his credentials are quite impressive and would clearly indicate that he was well-trained in the journalistic craft. But either out of circumstance (adherence to the Straits Times editorial stance) or personal volition, he produced a very inadequate article on Shanmugam’s Petir editorial.
Perhaps you may disagree with me on my judgement of this particular story by Hussain, or any of my criticism in this column or earlier ones. If so, please raise your concerns. This would be the sort of discussion I want to have here, instead of belabouring the points of whether or not I am an narcissitic egomaniac, or if I am “experienced” enough to dissect the news.
If I am indeed a fraud and don’t know what I am talking about, it shouldn’t be hard to expose me. If you think I am wrong, tell me and argue your from your perspective. This will lead to a far more fruitful discussion than this. And I want to have that discussion, for it can only improve our understanding and awareness about the issues concerning the Singaporean news media.
Legal Eagle
Thus far, you have positioned yourself as someone who thinks he can criticise an author about his depth of reporting. Granted that you have little or no actual experience working as a crtiic, I don’t see how you can assume you know better without the presence of a mild deity complex.
That you choose ALSO to do it under the veil of anonymity is definitely a telling thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~
It is easy to tell others, but now, when you are in the hot seat, do you really have what you say it takes? Please share your full name, address, educational and working qualifications, since you say that these are requried before the author can criticise the MSM.
Without this information, we can safely chuck your comment in the dustbin since it is a clear case of double standards.
26) saiber on January 4th, 2010 2.22 pm
Thus far, you position yourself as someone who has a better news sense than the msm and are more adept at doing the job of reporting. Granted you have little or no actual experience working as a reporter, I don’t see how you can assume you know better without the presence of at least a mild god complex.
That you choose to do it under the veil of anonymity is another curious thing.
saiber
ok, fair enough. Although i would like to think that experience contributes in some manner to “news sense” – knowing what your reader wants. I think having experience helps you know your audience.
I do not know if the ST readership at large is more like me or like you, but I was interested in what Shanmugam had to say. I happen to agree that there needs to be more political education in schools and to find out that the Government is interested in introducing it is news to me.
I don’t receive Petir, so I wouldn’t have found out if not for ST. And as I said, it was news to me, and I’m glad it was news to ST also and not a review column. Just because something is announced in a op-ed in Petir to me doesn’t immediately rule it out as news.
Granted, I do not know if I am representative of the ST readership or not. I assume the people in ST with experience know their readers best.
But this disagreement with the basic premise of your critique is, as far as I’m concerned, an aside.
If you had simply voiced your opinion that the piece was not newsworthy, I would have never ventured to suggest that you have a superiority complex.
It’s the grandstanding and posturing you add to your writing that leaves me with a bad taste in the mouth.
“It seems that Zakir Hussain continues to flatter to deceive in his role as political correspondent. In the 19 December issue, the Oxford-educated and Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism-trained reporter ditched his years of training and became no more than a parrot.”
Is a personal attack necessary if your stated intention is to simply encourage debate on the quality of the press? It comes off as someone with some sort of personal agenda. Did he piss you off when you interned there?
Spiegel
@saiber
“I do not know if the ST readership at large is more like me or like you, but I was interested in what Shanmugam had to say.”
I wrote in my column that one of the problems with the ST in doing stories like this is that it seldom does the same coverage for opposition party publications or statements. If this sort of piece is what ST considers news, then it should be covering the same material that comes out from opposition parties.
“Is a personal attack necessary if your stated intention is to simply encourage debate on the quality of the press? It comes off as someone with some sort of personal agenda. Did he piss you off when you interned there?”
I have never met him actually.
My point was to show that he is clearly capable of doing better than what he did in this story – he is certainly well-trained, and his experience at Columbia would have exposed him to the way political journalism is done elsewhere, for all its positives and negatives.
His Petir story is not journalism, and it only just about can be described as reporting (there’s a difference between the two) – it is basically a paraphrased Petir press release. Its cut-and-paste-and-rearrange nature means it certainly won’t see the light of day on these Columbia University Journalism School student-run news websites (http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1212610920459/page/1175295367452/JRNSimplePage2.htm) even if they were covering Singaporean politics.
Further on this note, the influx of PR influence in the news media and their growing ability to set the news agenda will something I will write about in the future.
As I have explained in the column, this story could be so much better written, more fully-fleshed out, put into context vis-a-vis the wider political scene. But it wasn’t.
I would therefore argue that he knowingly compromised on journalistic quality in his writing of this piece. He was capable of doing better, but he did not. Perhaps not out of choice, but nonetheless the product is not satisfactory.
If I have an agenda, I would say it is an agenda against institutional and systemic bias in the press. Hussain’s piece on Shanmugam’s Petir editorial, both seen by itself and when judged in the context of overall ST political coverage, is an example of such bias.
saiber
You have a most unsual method of motivation.
But if I am reading you right. In your view, if a member of the opposition, say Mr Low Thia Khiang, were to make the suggestion, it should be accorded the same importance as if the Law Minsiter did. I have to disagree.
Spiegel
@saiber,
If the Law Minister was speaking on matters of national policy, then you are right. But in this case, he wasn’t.
It was a party political piece, written from his competence as a top member of the PAP, targeted at PAP members, given the publication it was printed in was a PAP magazine. He did not write in in his competence as a cabinet minister.
In this vein, the press would logically accord importance to his speeches made as Law Minister speaking on govt policy, legal matters, national matters. But in this case, he wasn’t.
In Singapore, unfortunately, many people have bought completely into the idea that PAP = govt and govt = PAP, and the lines between the two have been blurred. This is a party political news coverage, not government coverage. If ST wishes to cover party political news in this manner, it should do so for all political parties.
Jeff
Spiegel – adding to that, can someone point out to me any example within the last five years (or, I suspect, the last 50) where PAP policy was not to the personal benefit of the top PAP leadership… in other words, where the leadership consciously took a hit in the name of better policy for Singapore? I find it very, very difficult to imagine. Theoretically possible, of course, but bear in mind the difference between theory and practice.
saiber
I didn’t read it that way. I read the suggestion of introducing political education as an issue of national importance, although it was first introduced in Petir, a party political publication.
The line, I think is a fine one. If he had made this suggestion anywhere outside of Petir, my sense is that you would have had less problem with its prominence.
Making a change to an education policy that captures all schools is a national policy. The writer is a minister.
The platform he chose to make the suggestion is party political. To me, that doesn’t immediately override the first two points.
But hey, I can see your line of reasoning and it is not without reason.
I don’t necessarily agree but I’ll leave it at that.
Spiegel
Let me say this.
What do the opposition think of this recommendation?
We don’t know, and Hussain didn’t bother to find out.
Spiegel
The reason I brought that up is because the misguided idea that deference to official sources and govt statements would ensure or provide objectivity is by default favouring the political incumbent – they get to set the news agenda practically at will.
This is exacerbated by the fact that we only have 1 English-language broadsheet in this country. There is no serious rival outlet to redress the media imbalance.
In order to handle the Truth,
1st, we need ALL the Truths presented to us.
Without All the Truths, what is the Truth to handle?
Whatever the case, most likely the majority, not necessarily the minority, will accept it where acceptance comes in many forms.
The only practical thing achievable is to WAIT for the Final Countdown.
Nature is on ourside.
Nothing can Dictate Law of Nature. Period.